Dear Knee and Hemming,
Kiesel's exellent book made it clear to me to what extent Heidegger's
continous contention, namly, that the "Sache" of his thinking was "always
the same", despite- or precisely because? -the multiplicity of paths in
which it is sought and expressed, becomes scientifically more reliable and
demonstrable. Can it be that Heidegger realy tried to think das Sein in
many different senses, using the main (or at least the main
Greecian-continental) philosophical systems as possible paths, as long as he
believed (but then: did he ever?) that the tradition can support and guide
him on this way? and that SZ concludes the period in Heidegger's thought in
which he still believed that radically transformed Idealism, Phenomenology,
Kantianism, Neo-Kantianism, Aristotelism and Platonism, Life-Philosophy
ect...ect.. might, nevertheless, still create a suitable "Foundamental (but
than unavoidablly metaphysical!) Ontology". Indeed, might it not be that his
later 'turnning' to a mytho-poetic "thinking" (not to say mysto-gnostic!),
is a conscious confession that Philosophical Thinking as such, in the form
it was developed in Europe from Plato to Nietzsche, marked by the
forgetfulness of Being, cannot draw near to the mystery? And then: is this
latter (days) form of poetizing 'atheism' or not, or something else?
Can you relate to these points of view?
-------------------------------------
J.Ben-Aharon
Haifa uni. Department of Philosophy
E-mail:b_aharon@netvision.
Tel/fax: ++972-4-9865944
Address: Harduf, 17-930
D.N Nazareth Eilit
Israel
-------------------------------------
04/29/96
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Kiesel's exellent book made it clear to me to what extent Heidegger's
continous contention, namly, that the "Sache" of his thinking was "always
the same", despite- or precisely because? -the multiplicity of paths in
which it is sought and expressed, becomes scientifically more reliable and
demonstrable. Can it be that Heidegger realy tried to think das Sein in
many different senses, using the main (or at least the main
Greecian-continental) philosophical systems as possible paths, as long as he
believed (but then: did he ever?) that the tradition can support and guide
him on this way? and that SZ concludes the period in Heidegger's thought in
which he still believed that radically transformed Idealism, Phenomenology,
Kantianism, Neo-Kantianism, Aristotelism and Platonism, Life-Philosophy
ect...ect.. might, nevertheless, still create a suitable "Foundamental (but
than unavoidablly metaphysical!) Ontology". Indeed, might it not be that his
later 'turnning' to a mytho-poetic "thinking" (not to say mysto-gnostic!),
is a conscious confession that Philosophical Thinking as such, in the form
it was developed in Europe from Plato to Nietzsche, marked by the
forgetfulness of Being, cannot draw near to the mystery? And then: is this
latter (days) form of poetizing 'atheism' or not, or something else?
Can you relate to these points of view?
-------------------------------------
J.Ben-Aharon
Haifa uni. Department of Philosophy
E-mail:b_aharon@netvision.
Tel/fax: ++972-4-9865944
Address: Harduf, 17-930
D.N Nazareth Eilit
Israel
-------------------------------------
04/29/96
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---